Is morality meaningless when its natural foundations are exposed? No, unlike the naked emperor there is a clear substance to the genius of human ethical intuitions. Ancient man believed that this vigour must have been imparted by the gods, but modern man has attempted to trace back its origins to our animal past.

Evolutionary theory is the framework which can expose the ultimate causes behind our moral intuitions. In the 1960s WD Hamilton, John Maynard Smith, and George Price elucidated an evolutionary algebra of morals which showed exactly how a gene-centered wold-view could give rise to altruism. To the question of "why", these thinkers responded with "genes." Goodness as we understand it is conditioned not upon a deep truth of what is good, but upon the utility of goodness in fostering the replication of particular genes. George Price produced the most general algebra of this genetic morality with his eponymous equation, but this brilliant flash of insight opened the door to the mechanical dissection of altruism which drove him to madness. Price looked to Christianity for the moral foundations which he believed had been torn down by his scientific analysis. His tortured decline and ultimate suicide in 1975 suggests that the answers Price found in religion were not sufficient.

What can this teach us? Not much. George Price was a passionate and mercurial individual before he stumbled upon the evolutionary explanations of altruism; and so he remained to his dying day. Will evolutionary theory be the universal acid, to borrow Daniel Dennett's metaphor, which eats away at the rational foundations of our morality? There is quite a bit of variation in the belief in evolution across countries. In Denmark most everyone accepts evolution, while in Turkey only a minority do. Are the Danes tortured souls, as opposed to the Turks, who are assured as to the divine roots of their morals? Despite the picture painted by Lars von Trier's body of work the Danes are by some measures the happiest people in the world, so I would say no.

The origins of morality do not matter. The Danes believe in evolution, yes, but they understand it only marginally better than the Turks. Fewer still could define inclusive fitness. Turks believe in Islam, but most know Islamic theology or jurisprudence as well as a Dane. Sons cherish their mothers, and mothers will sacrifice for their children, whether they believe in a living God above, an eternal karmic cycle, or a mindless evolutionary process across the eons.

The ethos of the age does not rest upon the ratiocinations of the philosopher, it emerges from the consensus of the plain people, informed and constrained by our evolved intuitions. This may cause distress among intellectuals with a zeal for systematic coherency, but the hearts of most men are unmoved by a failure of logic. Human nature is biologically rooted no matter where the canopy sways. The puritans believed with great sincerity that all was predestined by God, yet their daily decisions seemed untroubled by the existential anxieties in their literature. A devout Christian believes that this life is just the beginning, but with a gun to his head he may feel as much fear as an atheist. This may not be coherent, but it is all too human. Our moral consensus is a river whose course shifts across the plain, constrained by the hills thrust upward by biology. Only history knows where the river will flow next, though evolution can hint at the range of possibilities.